Cures That Harm: Unanticipated Outcomes of Crime Prevention Programs
Abstract
This review highlights the importance of recognizing the possibility for doing harm when intentions are good. It describes several examples showing that well-planned and adequately executed programs provide no guarantee for safety or efficacy. The author concludes with recommendations for scientifically credible evaluations to promote progress in the field of crime prevention.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Peer contagion can lead to iatrogenic effects of education and intervention programs that bring together high-risk youth.
“and can lead to iatrogenic effects of education and intervention programs that bring together high -risk youth (e.g., crime prevention programs, treatment for antisocial youth; Feldman, 1992; McCord, 2003).”
From Cross-age peer mentoring for youth: A meta-analysis (2022) · cites this paper as McCord, 2003
In the Cambridge Somerville Youth Trial, while there was no benefit from active treatment in 59% of matched pairs, in the 41% where there were differences, those with worse outcomes across a range of measures had been in the active treatment condition.
“When those in the trial were followed up 30 years after its completion, it was found that while there was no benefit from the active treatment in 59% of the matched pairs, in the 41% where there were differences, those with the worse outcomes across a range of measures had been in the active treatment condition [13].”
From The recording of adverse events from psychological treatments in clinical trials: evidence from a review of NIHR-funded trials (2014) · cites this paper as [13]
The range of outcomes and the long time frame of the Cambridge Somerville Youth Trial strongly indicate that those in the active arm had suffered sustained harm.
“The range of outcomes and the long time frame strongly indicate that those in the active arm of the trial had suffered sustained harm.”
From The recording of adverse events from psychological treatments in clinical trials: evidence from a review of NIHR-funded trials (2014) · cites this paper as [13]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 31 · Cited by 338
- Authors
- McCord, J.
- Affiliations
- Temple University (US)
- Corresponding author
- McCord, Joan
- Venue
- The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2003-05
- Volume
- 587
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 16-30
- ISSN
- 0002-7162 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3349
- OpenAlex
- W2044948754
- Cited by
- 338
- References
- 31
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 24
- FWCI
- 46.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
- Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
- Keywords
- crime prevention programs, unintended consequences, program evaluation, program efficacy, program safety, evaluation credibility
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
